Language Assessment of Deaf Children: American Sign Language and English

(1)

JADARA

Volume 29 Number 3 Article 6

October 2019

Language Assessment of Deaf Children: American Sign Language

and English

Rita Vis Dubé

none

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Vis Dubé, R. (2019). Language Assessment of Deaf Children: American Sign Language and English.

(2)

Language

Assessment

of

Deaf

Children:

American

Sign Language and

English

By Rita Vis Dube

Abstract

Many people recognize

American Sign Language (ASL) as the first and native language of the

Deaf community. However,

traditional educational programs have focused only on the development of English language in its spoken, written, and perhaps signed forms. In recent years, the bilingual/

bicultural philosophy of deaf

education, which recognizes ASL and

English as equal and viable languages for the instruction of deaf children, has come to light. The integration of this approach into developmental and educational programs for deaf children has tremendous implications for language specialists and educators with regard to the development and assessment of the language abilities of deaf students. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature

relevant to the assessment of

language for deaf children, from a historical perspective and with respect to the bilingual/bicultural approach to deaf education. This review points unequivocally to the fact that there is a strong need for a tool for assessing the language skills of bilingual deaf children.

Introduction

Over the years, the issue of language competence has dominated

the field of education of deaf children. Numerous methods have

been developed to assess the language

skills of deaf children. Within the realm of standardized assessment

tools, numerous tests of English have been developed. Tools to evaluate an individuals' competence in

American Sign Language (ASL) have

been predominantly informal

checklists and descriptive

assessments.

Over the past decade, there has been an increasing interest in bilingual/bicultural education for deaf students: a philosophy which incorporates ASL and English in the

education of deaf students and fosters

an understanding and appreciation of

deaf culture in addition to the

cultural norms of the society at large (Johnson, Liddell & Erting, 1989; Livingston, 1986; Strong, 1988). The

increasing popularity of this

philosophy in educational programs for the deaf has highlighted the need for an assessment tool that provides a systematic assessment of an individuals' competence in English

and in ASL.

The purpose of this paper is to

review the literature on the issues relevant to the assessment of

language for deaf children. The following pages contain an overview

of the research in a number of relevant areas - deafness and

language development, bilingualism, dimensions of language, acquisition of English and ASL, and the principles of language assessment.

Recommendations for further

development in this area are also provided.

Review of the Literature

Deafness, Language and Education The issue of language of deaf children has been debated historically by the educators of these children. The controversy of oral versus manual language has continued since

the Milan Conference of the

Educators of the Deaf in 1880 (Lane, 1992). At that time, a decision was

made that all deaf students should be

educated through the use of oral language. Later, in the mid 1900s, it was recognized that an aural/oral approach was not appropriate for all

deaf children. Thus came the

introduction of total communication

(as discussed in Stewart, 1982). This philosophy proposed that children should have the opportunity to be

exposed to all forms of

communication ~ oral language through speechreading and auditory/spoken modalities, manual

language through sign language,

written language and gestures. The underlying belief of this philosophy was that if children were exposed to various forms of communication, they would then use the mode that

was best suited to their needs. With

the introduction of total

communication came the invention

of various systems of manually coded English which generally paired a manual sign with a spoken word to present a "visual" form of the language (Quigley & Paul, 1989). Although the original intent of this

philosophy was to include ASL, in

practice, manually coded English is generally the only form of signing used with this approach (Stewart, 1982).

The primary goal of oral and total communication programs is to develop functional speech and English literacy skills in deaf children. Livingston (1986) proposed an alternative view indicating that in addition to literacy skills in English, the goal of education for deaf children should include "thinking and learning through the

(3)

LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT; ASL AND ENGLISH

development of meaning-making and

meaning sharing capacities" (p. 21). This author encouraged the use of

American Sign Language (ASL) as it

is "the linguistic symbol system that appears to best convey meaning for deaf students" (Livingston,. 1986, p. 22). An approach that recognizes ASL as the first language of deaf people and as a vehicle for the instruction of English as a second language is consistent with a bilingual/bicultural philosophy for

deaf education.

Individuals who advocate the

bilingual/bicultural philosophy for language development and deaf education point to the historically

dismal outcomes of deaf education

using an English-based approach.

Johnson, Liddell, and Erting (1989)

stated that the fact that deaf students

have consistently fallen behind their

hearing peers on measures of

academic achievement suggests a need

for change. They, and others

(Cummins & Danesi, 1990; Davies,

1991; Livingston, 1986; Strong, 1988) proposed a model which encourages

deaf children to develop ASL as a native language and English, in its written form and in its spoken form

if possible, as a second language.

This model for language

development looks to the literature

on bilingualism for support.

In the late 1950s, a virtually non-existent area of research, the linguistics of ASL, was introduced (Stokoe, 1960). Through his intensive studies, Stokoe

demonstrated that ASL was indeed a

language; that is, it met all of the linguistic criteria necessary to be recognized as such. Subsequent

studies have verified Stokoe's

findings (as discussed in Klima &

Bellugi, 1979 and Wilbur, 1979). Thus, in recent decades, a strong push has come for the recognition of

ASL as the natural language of the

deaf and for the use of ASL in the

education of deaf children (Cummins

& Danesi, 1990). Even before

research validated ASL as a bona fide

language, it was recognized as a vital link for the Deaf community. The

social and cultural existence of the

Deaf community has always been expressed by and captured in the natural language of the Deaf ~ American Sign Language (Lane, 1992).

Promoting and emphasizing spoken English as a primary language is not a realistic, nor desirable, goal for many deaf children. "The spoken form of English does not provide deaf

students with full access to the

language" (Supalla, 1980, p. #). However, Quigley and Kretschmer (1982, p. xi) have asserted "that the primary goal of education for

typical, prelingually deaf children

should be literacy." Though this claim may be disputed (Livingston, 1986), the importance of English literacy is recognized by deaf and hearing people alike. As English is the majority language in North America, and is also the language most often used by the hearing families of deaf children, English

literacy is indeed important for the

social, academic, and vocational success of deaf individuals (Neuroth-Gimbrone & Logiodice, 1992).

Deaf children with deaf

parents have access to ASL as a native language and are exposed to this language in a similar manner to

hearing children developing a spoken

language. However, over 90 percent

of deaf children are born to hearing parents. As most hearing parents are not familiar with sign language, and most deaf children lack the ability to

acquire language through the

traditional auditory channel, the

majority of deaf children do not

have the linguistic exposure they

require to develop language naturally

(Meier, 1991). Thus, it is important

to consider the nature of language,

both English and ASL, in order to

understand further the processes involved in the language development of deaf children. Bilingualism

Considering the complexity involved in understanding and effectively using language, it is an amazing phenomenon that there are more people in the world who are bilingual than are monolingual (McLaughlin, 1978). The literature

in this area demonstrates a certain

amount of disagreement with regards to what constitutes bilingualism. The degree of bilingualism varies from having knowledge of some words in another language to having native-like control of both languages

(McLaughlin, 1978). Bilingualism can be viewed as a continuum among individuals and among dimensions of the languages.

Bilingualism, by definition,

refers to the use of two languages. As such, most deaf people are

bilingual (Grosjean, 1992). Deaf persons typically use English, written and/or spoken, on a daily basis through their encounters with hearing people and the hearing world. In addition, members of the Deaf community use ASL for communicating with their peers and

families. "The bilingualism present in the Deaf community is a form of

minority language bilingualism in

which the members of the Deaf

community acquire and use both the minority language (sign language)

and the majority language in its

written form and sometimes in its

spoken or even signed form"

(Grosjean, 1992, p. 311).

Grosjean (1992) compared

and contrasted deaf bilinguals with

hearing bilinguals. Both groups of bilinguals demonstrate social,

cultural, and linguistic diversity. In addition, with hearing and deaf

(4)

LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT: ASL AND ENGLISH

bilinguals, the use of either language

fluctuates along the bilingual

continuum depending upon the situation. Grosjean also commented on some of the characteristics unique to deaf bilinguals.

• Until recently, deaf people have not been recognized as being bilingual (perhaps a result of the lack of recognition of ASL as an official language).

• By the very nature of their deafness, deaf persons continue to be bilingual from generation to generation.

• Certain aspects of the majority language (i.e., speech) may not be acquired by some bilingual deaf

persons.

• The patterns of language use with bimodal bilingualism (i.e.,

visual/gestural language and

aural/oral/written language)

appear to be more complex than

with spoken language

bilingualism.

Cummins (1980) discussed a theory of bilingual language development which he illustrated through his model of Common

Underlying Proficiency. In this

model, basic interpersonal

communication skills (BICS) develop

spontaneously in the first language, given unrestricted exposure to this

language. Cognitive/academic

language proficiency (CALP) developed in the first language enhances the development of these

skills in a second language. A

number of other theories of

bilingualism reinforce the concepts

illustrated by Cummins (e.g.,

threshold hypothesis, developmental interdependence theory, as cited in Cummins (1978). This model may be applied to the case of deaf

bilingualism, with ASL and English

as the first and second languages

respectively. Given adequate

exposure and experience with ASL at

an early age, a child would develop Figure 1

Dimensions of Language

BICS and then CALP in this

language. This proficiency could

then be used as a basis for fostering development of English.

In order for the deaf child to

acquire mastery of both ASL and English, a bilingual approach to language development and education is essential. The acceptance of this philosophy has tremendous impact for deaf individuals, their families and educators (for a discussion of these issues see Dube, 1995).

Examination of a child's skills in

either language provides an

opportunity to explore the child's strengths and challenges with respect to ASL and English. Thus it is important to consider the nature of both languages in some detail. Dimensions of Language

"A language is a code whereby ideas about the world are expressed through a conventional system of arbitrary signals for

Internal Context Content Object Knowledge Object Relations Event Relations Form Phonology Morphology Syntax Use Intention Presupposition Function

Adapted from Bloom & Lahey, 1978

(5)

communication" (Bloom & Lahey,

1978, p. 4). Language can be

considered along three interactive but

distinct dimensions: language

content, form and use (Bloom & Lahey, 1978; Lahey, 1988). Figure 1 depicts the relationship among these

dimensions.

Language content is commonly defined as the semantics of the language, including the lexicon and the interaction among lexical

items ref. It can be viewed in terms

of object knowledge, objects

relations, and event relations. Content extends beyond the topics idiosyncratic to an individual or context; it defines the scope of language as it is shared globally.

Language form considers the underlying rules governing the structure of the language. More

specifically, phonology, morphology

and syntax are the rule-based systems

involving units which are combined

in a relative hierarchy.

The scope of language use,

or pragmatics, is three-fold. It

defines the functions of language in

terms of intrapersonal and

interpersonal communication, the

manner in which the information in

a message accomplishes the goals set forth by the speaker, and the social

rules of communicative interactions

(Bloom & Lahey, 1978). Acquisition of Language

Studies of the acquisition of language have been conducted in most of the languages known to humankind. Dating back to the early twentieth century, research on acquisition is available for a number of different languages (Slobin, 1985). Studies of language acquisition are primarily descriptive and longitudinal in nature and involve the transcription and categorization of the linguistic output of a single child or a small group of children, de Villiers and de Villiers (1985) and

Miller (1981) present comprehensive reviews of the acquisition information available for English. Newport and Meier (1985) and Wilbur (1979) present a similar compilation for ASL.

The present discussion will consider information on language

acquisition within Bloom and

Lahey's framework (date) of the

dimensions of language. The

concepts presented under the

dimensions of content and use can be

considered cross-linguistically. Thus,

even though most of this

information stems from research

with English-speaking subjects, the aspects presented are applicable to

ASL as well. The structural forms of

English and ASL are unique and will therefore be considered independent ly. Some of the relevant research on of the three dimensions of language

are presented in Figure 2. It should be noted that, for discussion purposes, the dimensions of language Figure 2

Research on Language Acquisition

English A.S.L. Form Use Content

Dimensions of

Language

Content Categories (Bloom, 1970; Bonvillian at al., 1983) Semantic Relations (Brown, 1973; Newport & Ashbrook, 1977) Taxonomies of Language Functions (Dora, 1975; Halliday, 1975; Tough, 1977) Presupposition (Ballugi & Klima,

1981; Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Loaw,

1981)

Word Order

(Newport & Ashbrook, 1977)

Negation

(Ellenberger et al., 1975) Verb Agreement and Stems

(Meier. 1981; Supalla& Newport, 1978) Derivational and Inflectional Morphology Launer, 1982; Meier, 1980) Compounding (Supalla, 1980) 14 Grammatical Morphemes (Brown, 1973) Verb Phrases (Fletcher. 1979) Negatives (Klima, 1964) Questions

(Kuczaj & Maratos, 1983)

Pasrave (Horgan, 1978) Coordination (Lust, 1977) Relative Clauses (Limber, 1973)

(6)

are considered separately. However,

in the production of language, the

dimensions interact in a holistic manner within the context of the

social and communicative setting.

Language Content

The majority of information

available in the area of content has

focused on early language development, particularly the one and two-word level. Pioneering research on content categories and

semantic relations evolved from the

work of Bloom (1970) and Brown (1973). Complementary research has shown that these categories emerge in essentially the same order for ASL as compared to English (Meier & Newport, 1990; Newport &

Ashbrook, 1977). Lahey (1988)

discussed a plan for considering these

early structures through later

language development by considering

their interaction with language form

and use.

Language Form

English. Much of the

research available regarding the form of early language comes from data gathered by Brown and his associates on three young children. Early

morphemes (Brown, 1973), negatives

(iOima, 1964), and questions (Klima

& Bellugi, 1966) are some of the

structures described from this

database. Considerable research is

available concerning the aspects of the morphology and syntax of English, from simple to complex

structures.

American Sign Language (ASL). The form of ASL is unique in that it integrates spatial and temporal elements in its morphology. A number of studies describing features of early syntactic and morphological development have been reported (see Figure 2). Similar to the research in English, many of

these studies draw from a common

group of deaf children, all of whom had deaf parents who used ASL; thus

these children learned ASL as a

native language. Research on

later-developing syntactical structures such

as topicalization and clauses is virtually nonexistent (Newport & Meier, 1985).

Language LFse

The dimension of language use or pragmatics has received considerable attention over the past

twenty years. Chapman (1981)

provides a comprehensive review of

the existing taxonomies of

communicative intent. Similar to

language content, many of the taxonomies developed from the research on language use have focused on early language development (Dore, 1975; Halliday, 1975). These taxonomies consider

the function of the utterance with

respect to context. The research in

this areas stems from studies of

English. Prinz and Prinz (1985) have studied aspects of discourse function with ASL. Rather than focusing on specific taxonomies, their research examined five aspects of discourse (conversational attention-getting devices; formulating and responding to requests; turn taking; eye contact; and initiation, maintenance and termination of topics).

Another relevant area of

language use in discourse is the study of presupposition (Roth & Spekman, 1984), which considers the speakers' ability to take the perspective of the listener. This area is particularly useful in studying the pragmatics of narrative stories in language. Language Assessment

In the domain of language, assessment refers to the process of "describing a child's language behavior for the purpose of identifying a problem, planning intervention, or estimating

prognosis" (Lahey, 1988, p. 122).

The purpose of assessing the

language skills of any individual is:

to determine the level of language

functioning of the individual; to

ascertain if a delay or deviance in language functioning is present; and to describe the language abilities of the individual, including strengths

and deficit areas. Information

gathered through the assessment process is subsequently used for

programming and placement

decisions.

The optimal approach to language assessment has been an area of controversy for many years. Though some individuals strongly

advocate for the use of standardized

assessment instruments to assist in

making clinical judgments (Wiig & Semel, 1984), others have argued in favor of using descriptive measures

(Muma, 1986). In general, a

combination of these two approaches

is suggested. Such an approach

combines the use of standardized

tests, as appropriate, with descriptive

analysis and low structured

observations (Lahey, 1988). Models of Language Assessment

Bloom and Lahey (1978) proposed a model for language assessment which complements their theory of the dimensions of language content, form, and use. This model provides a framework for considering language holistically as well as examining the component parts of language. Lahey (1988) suggested an approach to assessment which relies heavily on information gathered through direct observation of the child by a skilled evaluator.

A means for eliciting information for a language

assessment which would be

consistent with the model presented by Bloom and Lahey (date) and discussed in detail by Lahey (1988) is a narrative approach. A narrative

(7)

framework allows individuals to use

their own language to create a story-involving characters, settings, and plots (Bruner, 1986) or to retell a story that they have heard or viewed

(Johnston, 1982). An example of the

use of the latter framework in

language assessment is the Bus Test (Renfrew, 1980). Commonly, the

elicited stories are transcribed and

analyzed following a model of story grammar Qohnston, 1982). However, the language sample generated through a narrative story

could also be viewed as an indicator

of the individual's competency with the content, form, and use of a language (Lahey, 1988).

An alternative to a narrative

assessment is the widely used discrete point approach to assessment which relies heavily on the use of standardized instruments (Damico,

1991). Damico described this

methodology as prescriptive, quantitative, and structurally oriented. He suggested this approach

stresses structure over function and

group norms over individual

differences. Thus, Damico indicated that this approach to language assessment is lacking in a number of

areas. It does not consider all

dimensions of language and does not

take into account sociocultural

influences. He also questioned the

Table 1

Language Tests Designed for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students

discriminant validity of this approach.

Concerns with Assessment

As discussed above, controversy exists surrounding the issue of approaches to language

assessment. In addition, general

concerns about assessment and

measurement practices also warrant consideration in language assessment. The Principles of Fair Student Assessment Practices for Education in Canada (1993) were developed in an attempt to address some of these concerns. The section concerning

"Assessments Produced External to the Classroom" discussed issues such

Test Reference Normative

Sample*

Intended Language

Scope of the Test ReliabUity

Information Validity Information Grammatical Analysis of Elicited Language (GAEL) • Pre-sentence (P), Simple Sentence (S). Complex Sentence (C) Moog. Kozak, & Geers (1983): Moog & Geers (1979. 1980) P: 150 children (3-0 to 5-11 years) S: 500 children (5-0 to 9-0 years) C: 270 children (8-0 to 11-11 years) (TC and oral programs) Signed or spoken English P: Readiness skills, single words, word combinations S and C: Grammatical categories (English) 0.93-0.97 »• S: Test-retest 0.91-0.96 ♦♦ Rater reliability 0.77-1.00 ♦» C: Test-retest 0.95-0.96 ** P: 0.80-0.87 »» S: 0.81-0.87 ♦♦(correlations with measures of expressive language for concurrent

validity)

C: 0.43-0.68; 0.84-0.87 ♦♦ (correlations with measures

of receptive and expressive language respectively for

concurrent validity) Test of Expressive Language Abilities (TEXLA) Bunch (1981) 65 children (7 to 11 years) (Residential programs) Signed or spoken English Production of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, prepositions, and verb tenses (English) Internal consistency 0.99 (Spearman-Brown Equal Length Correlation Coefficient) Content validity:

consultation with a panel of

experts Concurrent validity: 0.89 ♦♦ correlation with the TERLA; 0.64-0.74 ♦♦ correlation with a measure

of receptive vocabulary Test of Receptive Language Abilities (TERLA) Bunch (1981) 92 children (6 to 12 years) (Residential programs) Signed or spoken English Comprehension of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, prepositions, and verb tenses (English) Internal consistency 0.96 (Spearman-Brown Equal Length Correlation Coefficient)

Content validity: same as

TEXLA

Concurrent validity: 0.89 ♦♦ correlation with the TEXLA; 0.67-0.71 ♦♦ correlation with a measure

of receptive vocabulary

Rhode Island Test of

Language Structure (RTTLS) Engen & Engen (1983) 364 children ages 6 to 18 years (Residential programs) Signed or spoken English Comprehension of simple and complex English sentence patterns Internal Consistency 0.89 (Kruder-Richardson 20)

Discussion of content and

construct validity (see RITLS manual p. 26-32) Test of Syntactic Ability (TSA) Quigley, Steinkamp. Power & Jones(1978) 411 children ages 10 to 18 years (Day and residential programs) Written English

Screening test and diagnostic battery

to examine all areas

of English syntax

Internal Consistency

0.93-0.98

(Kruder-Richardson 20 for each structure) Test-retest: 0.62-0.83

Concunent validity: 0.29 to 0.42 ♦♦ correlation with non-verbal IQ Point biserial over 0.40 for

88% of items

Test of Early Reading

Abilities-Deaf or Hard of Hearing CTERA-D/HH) Reid, Hresko. Hammill & Wiltshire (1991) 1146 children ages 3-0 to 13-11 years (Primarily TC programs Administered in signed or spoken English or ASL

Early reading skills (English)

Internal consistency 0.94.0.95 (Cronbach's

alpha - forms A & B)

Test-retest: 0.83 ♦♦

Discussion of content, criterion, construct and item validity Signed Language Development Checklist (draft version) Mounty, (1993)

None as of yet ASL Grammar of ASL Information not

provided

Information not provided

♦ Sample of Deaf/Hearing Impaired subjects only

** Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient

(8)

as developing and selecting methods

for assessment, collecting and

interpreting assessment information, informing students being assessed and their parents/guardians of the assessment results and implementing

mandated assessment programs.

These guidelines deal primarily with

the issue of standardized assessment

procedures. They provide informa tion for test users concerning the importance of selecting appropriate tools, the appropriateness of the

normative population and the

standardization procedures of the

instrument in relation to the individual to be assessed, and proper

administration of the assessment

tool.

Also within the arena of

standardized testing, the issue of

validity is ever-present. Many of the

instruments used for language

assessment have been called into

question with regard to their lack of validity (Muma, Lubinski, & Pierce, 1982). In particular, the construct

validity of some language

instruments has been questioned

(Muma,

1986). In terms of validating

an assessment instrument, Messick

(1980, p. 1015) suggested that "it

[construct validity] is the basic meaning of validity". He also suggeseds an alternative view for examining validity which

incorporates the following aspects: content relevance, content coverage, criterion relatedness, and interpretive

meaningfulness. Messick stressed the need for consequential validation as an important aspect of the validity process. Thus it is important for both developers and users of tests to

be cognizant of the consequences

resulting from the use of any testing

instrument.

Language Assessment of Deaf

Children

A model for language

assessment for deaf children must

take into account the primary language of the child. Consistent

with the bilingual/bicultural

approach to deaf education, many deaf children develop ASL as their first language and English as a second language. These children should not be viewed as language deficient. An assessment approach which considers only performance in English may well do that. Using the model for assessment described above, the language performance of deaf children in ASL and in English can be evaluated by comparing it to developmental patterns found in the

literature.

Ling (1976), Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1978) and Russell,

Quigley, Power, and Jones (1976)

have provided considerable information regarding the assessment of English skills in deaf children. Over the years, instruments have been developed and standardized for

the purpose of assessing the language

skills of deaf children. Rodda and

Groves (1987) provided a comprehensive list of the tests of language and communication skills

developed for deaf students. Quigley

and Paul (1994) presented a more

recent discussion of some of the

available measures. Table 1 presents

a summary of some of the

commonly used instruments. As Table 1 indicates, most of the language assessment tools were designed to provide information

regarding the English language skills

of deaf children. The normative

samples used for these tests included

students involved in education

programs with either an oral or total

communication philosophy. For

children who are acquiring ASL as a

first language and English as a second language, the existing assessment tools may not provide sufficient relevant information. The pool of instruments for assessing ASL is extremely limited.

Bilingual Language Assessment

The need for an assessment

procedure which accurately reflect

the communicative abilities of

individuals from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds has been well documented (Erickson, 1981).

In addition to the usual difficulties

associated with validly assessing communication skills, cultural factors

add another dimension to the

evaluation process with bilingual

individuals. Bias in the form of

cultural differences and first and

second language proficiency may dramatically influence the outcome

of an assessment. Traditional,

discreet point assessment procedures

may only serve to accentuate bias in

evaluation and thus unfairly

disadvantage individuals with diverse

cultural or linguistic backgrounds.

Descriptive assessment approaches

may provide a more accurate picture of an individuals' true language and

communication abilities. " Such an

approach will more effectively limit

the bias inherent in the

communicative assessment of limited

English proficiency students and will

enable the evaluator to differentiate

between language-learning impaired

students versus normal

second-language learners or individuals from

culturally diverse backgrounds" (Damico, 1991, p. 177).

Conclusions about language assessment approaches

In light of the comments

discussed above, it is apparent that

an approach to language assessment

must be valid and relevant, regardless of the language in question (i.e., ASL or English). An appropriate

assessment infers that the

information gathered during this

process is relevant not only to the individual being assessed, but also to the language acquisition literature

with which the individual's

performance is compared. The

(9)

model for assessment proposed by Bloom and Lahey (1978) presents a venue for examining language holistically. Assessment information gathered in accordance with this

model thus lends itself to

examination with existing literature about the acquisition patterns of language content, form, and use.

Summary

The review of the literature

relevant to language assessment of

deaf children leads to several

postulations.

• Bilingual/bicultural education of

deaf students provides an opportunity for these children to

develop competency in ASL and

English while fostering an

understanding and respect for

cultural differences.

• The available literature on

language acquisition of ASL and English lends itself to the

formulation of a schema of

developmental patterns based on a

model of language content, form,

and use.

• The need exists for a means for

assessing a child's competence in both ASL and English.

• An instrument designed to assess

language competency should be

based on a framework which considers an individual's

naturalistic production of

language, rather than structured

responses to a limited set of

stimuli developed a priori.

• An instrument designed for the

purposes of assessing an

individual's linguistic competency should conform to the rigors of measurement theory (i.e., validity, reliability, and

responsiveness).

An examination of these

postulations provides an important

direction for future research in the

area of language development and

deafness. There is an obvious need

for a means to address the issue of

language assessment of deaf children, with respect to competency in ASL and English. Such an tool should be

based on the literature on the

acquisition of these two languages. In addition, it should be structured

in a manner which considers the

natural language production of an individual and yet provides a format which can be consistently applied

across individuals and contexts.

References

Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bloom, L. & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development

and language disorders. New York: Wiley Press. Brown, R. (1973). A first language, the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bunch, G. (1981). The test of receptive language

abilities. Toronto, ON: G.B. Services.

Chapman, R. (1981). Exploring children's

communicative intents. In J. Miller, Assessing language

production in children: Experimental procedures. Baltimore:

University Park Press.

Cummins, J. (1978). Educational implication of mother tongue maintenance in minority-language groups.

Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 395416.

Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14(2).

Cummins, J. & Danesi, N. (1990). Denial of voice: The suppression of deaf children's language in Canadian schools. In J. Cummins & M. Danesi (Eds.), Heritage languages: The development and denial of Canada's linguistic resources. Toronto, ON: Our School, Our Selves Education Foundation. Damico, J. (1991). Language assessment of bilingual students. In E. Hamayan & J. Damico (Eds.), Limiting the bias in the assessment of bilingual students, Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

Davies, S. (1991). The transition toward bilingual

education of deaf children in Sweden and Denmark:

Perspectives on language. Sign Language Studies, 71, 169-193. de Villiers, J. & de Villiers, P. (1985). The acquisition of English. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition volume 1: The data. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dore, J. (1975). Holophrases, speech acts and language

universals. Journal of Child Language, 2, 2140.

Dube, R.V. (1995). Creating a bilingual environment

for children who are deaf. ACEHI, 21 (1).

Erickson, J. (1981). Communication assessment of the

bilingual bicultural child. In J. Erickson & D. Omark, (Eds.)

Communication assessment of the bilingual bicultxiral child. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Grosjean, F. (1992). The bilingual and the bicultural

person in the hearing and in the deaf world. Sign Language Studies, 77, 307-320.

Halliday, M. (1975). Learning how to mean. In E. Lenneberg & E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Foundations of language

development: A multidisciplinary approach. New York:

Academic Press.

Johnson, R., Liddell, S. & Erting, C. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in

deaf education. Gallaudet Research Institute, Working Paper

89-3. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Johnston, J. (1982). Narratives: A new look at communication problems in older language-disordered children. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 13,

144-155.

Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In J. Fodor & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language,: Readings in the

philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Klima, E. & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic regularities

in the speech of children. In J. Lyons dc R. Wales ^ds.),

Psycholinguistic papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.

Klima, E. & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kretschmer, R. & Kretschmer, L. (1978). Language

development and intervention with the hearing impaired.

Baltimore: University Park Press.

Lahey, M. (1988). Language disorders and language

development. New York: MacMillan Publishing.

Lane, H. (1992). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the deaf community. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Ling, D. (1976). Speech and the hearing impaired child: Theory and practice. Washington, DC: A.G. Bell

Association for the Deaf.

Livingston, S. (1986). An alternative view of education

for deaf children: Parti. American Annals of the Deaf, March, 21-25.

McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second-language acquisition in

childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaiun Associates.

Meier, R. (1991). Language acquisition by deaf

children. American Scientist, 79, 60-70.

Meier, R. & Newport, E. (1990). Out of the hands of babes: On a possible sign advantage in language acquisition.

Langtiage, 66, 1-23.

Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35 (11), 1012-1027.

Miller, J. (1981). Assessing language production in children: Experimental procedures. Baltimore: University Park

Press.

Muma, J. (1986). Language acquisition: A fimctionalistic perspective. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Muma, J. Lubinski, R. & Pierce, S. (1982). Language

assessment: Data or evidence. In N. Lass (Ed.), Speech and Language, 7, 135-147.

Neuroth-Gimbrone, C. & Logiodice, C. (1992). A cooperative bilingual program for deaf adolescents. Sign

Language Studies, 74, 79-91.

Newport, E. & Ashbrook, E. (1977). The emergence of semantic relations in American Sign Language. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 13, 16-21.

Newport, E. & Meier, R. (1985). The acquisition of

American Sign Language. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic

study of language acquisition volume 1: The data. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Principles for Fair Student Assessment Practices for Education in Canada (1993). Edmonton, AB: Joint Advisory

Committee.

Prinz, P. & Prinz, E. (1985). If only you could hear what I see: Discourse development in sign language. Discourse

Processes, 8, 1-19.

Quigley, S. & Kretschmer, R. (1982). The education

of deaf children. Baltimore: University Park Press. Quigley, S. & Paul, R. (1994). Language and deafness (2nd edition). San Diego, CA; Singular Publishing Group.

Renfrew, C. (1980). Renfrew language tests. Oxford:

C.E. Renfrew.

Rodda, M. & Grove, C. (1987). Language, cognition and deafness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roth, F. & Spekman, N. (1984). Assessing the

pragmatic abilities of children: Part 1. Organizational

framework and assessment parameters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49 (1), 2-11.

Russell, K., Quigley, S., Power, D. & Jones, B. (1976).

Linguistics and deaf children. Washington, DC: A.G. Bell

Association for the Deaf.

Slobin, D. (1985). Introduction: Why study

acquisition crosslinguistically?. In D. Slobin (Ed.) The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition volume 1: The

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stewart, D (1982). American Sign Language: A

forgotten aspect of total communication. ACEHI Journal, 8, 137-148.

Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American

Deaf . Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.

Strong, M. (1988). A bilingual approach to the

(10)

education of young deaf children: ASL and English. In M. Strong ^d.), Language learning and deafness. Cambridge, MA: University Press.

Supalla, S. (1980). The acquisition of compoimds in

ASL by a deaf child. Working paper, The Salk Institute.

Wiig, E. & Semel, E. (1984). Language assessment and intervention for the learning disabled. Coliunbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Wilbur, R. (1979). American sign language and sign

systems. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Rita Vis Dube: I would like to

thank the following people for their useful insights and comments with respect to this manuscript: Gerry Kysela, Department of Educational Psychology; Phyllis Schneider and Gary Holdgrafer, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of Alberta; and Dave Mason, Department of Educational Psychology, York University.

Correspondence concerning

this article should be sent to Rita

Vis Dube, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G

2G4 ( e -ma i l :

rdube@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca).